Security at Sea: This is a mixture of my own research into maritime security issues, and includes articles, videos and images of interest from other sources.. Feel free to use these, including my articles and post graduate research (thesis) as long all are correctly attributed to the relevant author.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Does the Law of the Sea Treaty have a Chance of Passing the US Senate?

Next week, Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary
of Defense Panetta will brief the Senate on the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, otherwise known as UNCLOS. The treaty
has been around for decades, and was originally signed by President
Reagan, but never ratified by the Senate.
The treaty provides rules of the road for the high seas, maritime
rights and seabeds. The military supports the treaty because it offers
clarity on sea-lanes; the extractive industry supports it because it
provides a mechanism to make legal claims to minerals below seabeds;
environmental groups like it because it provides guidelines to
extracting those minerals in an ecologially sensitive way; peace groups
support it because it is one part of the liberal internationalist
project. Even George W. Bush, who no one would confuse as a liberal
internationalist, even supported it.
Outside a few blocks of Washington, DC UNCLOS is totally
uncontroversial. But inside the US Capitol building, the treaty has
languished. Ratifying a treaty requires a two thirds vote of the US
Senate, so if everyone is present that requires 67 votes in favor.
There is a not-insignificant minority of US Senators who have
ideological hangups with the very idea of international law and
treaties. Under no circumstance would they vote for a treaty or
something that can be construed as international law.
The size of this minority will determine whether or not the treaty can be ratified.
So how many senators are probably intrinsically opposed to UNCLOS?
Treaty votes are somewhat rare, so it is hard to get a handle on where
Senators stand on treaties in general–and UNCLOS in particular. However,
in 2009 there was one vote that could offer some insights into
Senators’ ideological predilections on questions on international law.
Shortly after becoming Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton nominated Harold Koh
to serve as her legal advisor. This is a top position which requires
senate confirmation and he was filibustered. No one questioned Koh’s
abilities: he is an internationally renowned legal scholar, former Dean
of Yale Law School, and held top positions in the State Department
during the Clinton administration. Still, some Republicans
blocked his nomination over Koh’s record of support for the idea that
foreign and international law can help inform American jurisprudence. In
other words, they tried to block his nomination because he believed in
the validity and applicability of international law.
Here was the vote breakdown
on his nomination, which was filibustered so 60 votes were required to
pass. I’ve crossed out the names of Senators who have been replaced
since this 2009 vote by someone who might vote differently.

New members of congress include: Senator Brown from Massachussetts
who is a toss-up. Senator Voinovich, a GOP “yes” vote, was replaced by
Senator Rob Portman a Republican who is probably a toss-up. Senator
Spector was replaced by Senator Pat Toomey, who is almost certainly a
“no” vote. Senator Feingold, a “yes” vote, was replaced by Ron Johnson,
a probable “no” vote. Senator Lincoln, a yes vote, was replaced by
Senator John Boozman, a likely “no” vote. Judd Gregg, a “no” vote was
replaced by Kelly Ayotte, a probable “no” vote, so that’s a wash. And
Sen. Dodd was replaced by Sen. Blumenthal, also a wash.
So, my back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the “yes” votes
are down to 59, meaning the pro-treaty side needs to somehow find 8
more votes from the “nays” or toss ups. In a tense election season in
which less than moderate republicans (like Dick Lugar) are being toppled
by their Tea Party opposition, I would imagine that treaty ratification
will be heavy lift. On the other hand, the fact that the White House
and Senate Democrats are making a push for UNCLOS ratification suggests
that maybe they think they have a few votes in the bag.
In any case, this is a very important vote for those of us who follow
UN issues. UNCLOS is the lowest of low-hanging fruit. If a totally
uncontroversial treaty like Law of the Sea can’t pass the Senate,
there’s little chance that other treaties in the pipeline (like the Convention on the Rights of the Child or Convention on the Elimination of all Forms Discrimination Against Women) will ever be passed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Eight Bells

Here you will find articles, videos, and my blogs relating to my research and areas of interest are in maritime security, politics of Indonesia, and the Asia-Pacific, law and order at sea in the Caribbean & Southeast Asia, terrorism (insurgencies) Submarine warfare, and the history of war at sea...all washed down with G & Ts as the sun crosses the yard-arm............